Hi all,
I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
My eyes get sore when looking at commit messages like these:
* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots
As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?
Hi all,
I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
My eyes get sore when looking at commit messages like these:
* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots
As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?
Surely, the short form of DEP--1 would be DEP+1 since
-(-1) is +1. This would also ensure maximum confusion.
To add some real value to this thread. I am fine with the DEP-X variant.
Your are right Simon, the body actually says "DEP0" and only title has
DEP-0 ( https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/blob/master/web/deps/dep0.mdwn#L1). The changelog even has "DEP 0".
Front page of dep-team.pages.debian.net spells it with a space.. The role model https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/ also uses space, but dash (and padding) in the filename. RFCs also use space. Maybe I should withdraw proposal to standardize on the dash..
I don't care which spelling we choose, I just want it to be consistent.
On Thursday, November 14, 2024 10:18:17 AM MST Otto Kekäläinen wrote:
Your are right Simon, the body actually says "DEP0" and only title has
DEP-0 (
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/blob/master/web/deps/dep0.mdwn#L1). >> The changelog even has "DEP 0".
Front page of dep-team.pages.debian.net spells it with a space.. The role
model https://peps.python.org/pep-0001/ also uses space, but dash (and
padding) in the filename. RFCs also use space. Maybe I should withdraw
proposal to standardize on the dash..
I don't care which spelling we choose, I just want it to be consistent.
While it obviously wasn’t standardized from the beginning, I am in favor of it
becoming standardized. Of all the available options, I personally like DEP-0 >the best.
Surely, the short form of DEP--1 would be DEP+1 since
-(-1) is +1. This would also ensure maximum confusion.
As the original DEP-0 used that in the title, I suggest we agree to consistently spell it with a dash going forward. Anyone seconds?
Joking aside I support standardizing on "DEP-1".
Let's implement this. Please vote on which variant you prefer by
giving a thumbs up at
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
OR
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP 0")
I apologize that this requires JavaScript to those who are concerned.
I don't know how to +1 in the GitLab API from the command line, so I
can't offer that as an option now, but I can provide direct links to
raw diff so you can at least read these without having to run
JavaScript:
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13.patch https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14.patch
* Otto Keklinen: " Re: DEP-0, DEP0 or DEP 0?" (Sun, 17 Nov 2024 15:23:50avoid
-0800):
Hi Otto,
Let's implement this. Please vote on which variant you prefer by
giving a thumbs up at
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
OR
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14
Unify DEP spelling with a space instead of dash (e.g. "DEP 0")
I apologize that this requires JavaScript to those who are concerned.
I don't know how to +1 in the GitLab API from the command line, so I
can't offer that as an option now, but I can provide direct links to
raw diff so you can at least read these without having to run
JavaScript: https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13.patch https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/14.patch
I know that you are working a lot on Salsa CI and that you like and promote the platform. Not all in the project are at ease with gitlab. So please
to change communication channels and put pressure on people to use that platform for voting purposes that have a meaning to the project. Thanks!
I vote for DEP-0.
I am the kind of person that gets hugely annoyed by things like this.
Is anyone else feeling it?
·
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
Thanks Gioele for the stats. I noticed that 90% of the votes came in
the first two days.
In this system you can unvote and put your thumbs up on another
proposal if you want to change your mind now after letting the
question sink in for a few weeks, but please make sure you have voted
only on one option. Double votes will be manually nullified at final
count as there is no technical way to prevent it.
I have been pondering about this myself and decided today to cast my
own vote on DEP0
(https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/15) as I have
seen so much of RFC822, dep3, dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places.
I will count the final status on Dec 17th so that they have been open
for 30 days, and then follow up with MR to implement the winning
option.
Otto Kekäläinen <otto@debian.org> writes:
Thanks Gioele for the stats. I noticed that 90% of the votes came in
the first two days.
In this system you can unvote and put your thumbs up on another
proposal if you want to change your mind now after letting the
question sink in for a few weeks, but please make sure you have voted
only on one option. Double votes will be manually nullified at final
count as there is no technical way to prevent it.
I have been pondering about this myself and decided today to cast my
own vote on DEP0 (https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/15) as I have
seen so much of RFC822, dep3, dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places.
I will count the final status on Dec 17th so that they have been open
for 30 days, and then follow up with MR to implement the winning
option.
Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same purpose?
I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.
I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.
I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.
Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same purpose?
I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.
I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.
I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.
This summarises my preference perfectly, however, I'm not sure if we can enforce this consistenly.
I originally voted for DEP-4711, but after seeing it in text (IMHO
ugly), I went and changed my vote for DEP 4711, which is very nice on
the eyes. However, that does not work URLs (nicely), and as you say,
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.
So I fully agree that URLs and text should have different
representations, somewhat agree about keywording, but then we're back at inconsistency, especially if everyone has to learn 3 rules about
writing…
Hi,
Wouldn't another option be to allow for multiple ways to write things,
as long as they are consistently written in the same style for the same purpose?
I prefer writing DEP 4711 in text.
I prefer writing https://example.org/dep4711.txt in URLs.
I prefer writing [DEP-4711] as a reference keyword.
This summarises my preference perfectly, however, I'm not sure if we can enforce this consistenly.
I originally voted for DEP-4711, but after seeing it in text (IMHO
ugly), I went and changed my vote for DEP 4711, which is very nice on
the eyes. However, that does not work URLs (nicely), and as you say,
"DEP 8" is not easily searchable.
So I fully agree that URLs and text should have different
representations, somewhat agree about keywording, but then we're back at inconsistency, especially if everyone has to learn 3 rules about
writing…
To me it totally defeats the purpose on agreeing between MR13/14/15 if
we continue to spell it 3 different ways.
Can we just pick one
spelling that works everywhere?
This is what Holger elluded to, and made me personally change my
preferred option to DEP8 or DEP14 style of writing, which at most can
be spelled in small caps in places where large caps don't fit, such as
in shell commands, but there wouldn't more variations than that.
Can we agree on calling Debian Enhancement Proposals DEP-N with a dash?
My eyes get sore when looking at commit messages like these:
* cd4d154 DEP 15: initial draft
* f54478c DEP8: Fix link to current specification
* 1f20e9d DEP-14: Version -> refname mangling: Escape dots
https://salsa.debian.org/dep-team/deps/-/merge_requests/13
Unify DEP spelling with a dash instead of a space (e.g. "DEP-0")
= +22 (-4)
I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider
DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is
pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.
I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider
DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is
pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.
"it won", yes, but what did it win? nothing relevant IMO, and I voted.
the sample is way too small to be meaningful, for a start. then his poll
was hardly announced anywhere. etc pp.
I changed my personal preference from DEP-0 to DEP0 as I now consider DEP0 the best option based as I have seen so much of RFC822, dep3,
dep8 and DEP14 in use in many places. However, that +22 for DEP-0 is pretty large majority so I have to conclude it won.
"it won", yes, but what did it win? nothing relevant IMO, and I voted.
the sample is way too small to be meaningful, for a start. then his poll was hardly announced anywhere. etc pp.
What sample is large enough? I thought getting 30-40 people respond on
such a topic is pretty good, but glad to read any concrete suggestions/requirements for a good decision-making process for DEP
changes. Even though this decision is rather small, hearing your (and
others) thoughts on how to make good decisions is valuable for the
future.
I am also happy to wait longer if you want to do better announcements,
or I can execute your announcement requests if you have a vision of
what is sufficiently beyond "hardly anywhere" yet not spammy.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 175:31:21 |
| Calls: | 9,705 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,736 |
| Messages: | 6,178,851 |